Honda Odyssey vs Dodge/Chrysler minivans

Comments

The effectiveness of ESC, much like ABS, is in dispute. The NHTSA's research so far has been extremely limited in scope, being based on 1997-2002 crash results in five states. I am not sure, but I believe the population of mini-vans in that study may have been zero. The ESC studies have concentrated on passenger cars and SUVs and during the time frame of those studies ESC was not widely available in mini-vans.

The specific claim on the level of ESC effectiveness in any vehicle type is speculation, much less mini-vans. Even the NHTSA recognizes that much of the data is post anaylsis that's used to evaluate the effectiveness of most motor vehicle safety equipment, and is usually subjective and highly inaccurate. That is why the NHTSA has proposed the Event Data Recorder (EDR) be installed in every vehicle made.

The fact is that since the inception of certain "safety" devices the highway fatality rate has risen,not dropped. We now know that the lap only seat belt actually killed people, and ABS may have contributed to increase injuries and fatalities in certain types of accidents. Like safety equipment in general, ABS and maybe ESC is not the safety panacea that advocates symptomatically rush about.

Fatality rate (fatalities/100,000 population) has seen a similar decline from 1994 (15.64) to 2004 (14.52). Fatality rate (fatalities/100,000 registered vehicles) is also down from 1994 (21.15) to 2003 (18.58). I've seen data in the past for years prior to 1994 but will have to dig for it. Generally (and with VERY few exceptions), the fatality rate has fallen virtually every year since the '60s.

I'd be interested to see the data showing a rise in fatality rates immediately following the inception of certain safety devices.

"...the many statistical analysis of crash databases performed over the last several years suggest that, for automobiles, the introduction of four-wheel anti-lock brakes has produced net safety benefits much lower than originally expected. For example, Kahane found that while the involvement of ABS-equipped automobiles in fatal multi-vehicle crashes on wet roads was reduced by 24 percent, fatal single-vehicle crashes increased by 28 percent."

Although dated 1998, there is no research since that invalidates the results. In fact, the March 2003 report, "NHTSA Light Vehicle Antilock Brake System Research Program Task 5.2/5.3," by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (DOT HS 809-561) restates Kahane's research results and adds, "On wet roads, fatal run-off-road crashes increased by 17 percent, and non-fatal crashes run-off-road crashes increased by 24 percent [with ABS]."

While the data indicates a reduction of certain types of fatal and non-fatal crashes, for others there are increases, such as those on dry or gravel roads, thereby offsetting any benefit results from ABS.

While the total raw-data rate of fatal and non-fatal crashes have fallen, the evidence does not support that it is due to the installation of ABS.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of any at this point. The available study on ESC has been very minimal and very limited in scope. The current post analysis research indicates significant benefit from ESC. The problem is that such initial research almost always indicates huge benefit, like seat belts, air bags, and ABS.

In "Preliminary Results Analyzing the Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems, DOT HS 809-790 (2004), the author's data analysis suggests a 35 percent reduction in single vehicle crashes in passenger cars, and a 67 percent in SUVs, 30 percent in fatal single vehicle crashes, and 63 percent in SUVs.

There are issues with the study, but like most advocate research it is absent any statistical critique. First, the study relied very heavily on two makes of 1997-2002 passenger cars, the Mercedes and the BMW, as well as SUVs although some Toyota and Lexus models were included. The study could only be conducted on vehicles that had ESC installed as factory standard equipment.

The real problem in the current ESC research is the post analysis input. As noted by former NHTSA director Dr. Ricardo Martinez*:

"...despite the high-tech nature of motor vehicles today, current methods of crash investigation rely on 'analyzing the archaeology of the crash,' subjective witness statements, and expert opinion to determine the 'facts.'"

He adds,

"...that the movement from mechanical to electrical systems and sensors means that physical evidence of the crash is diminishing [emphasis added]. For example, anti-lock brakes reduce skid marks, making it more difficult to make determinations about wheel and vehicle behavior."

In addition, the current number of crash cases are extremely limited and available data is skewed towards the more serious crashes.

ESC may very well be effective, but to what degree is pure conjecture. Like we've seen with other proposed safety devices, after adoption the effectiveness amazingly decreases, sometimes dramatically. In the meantime people are paying increased vehicle prices to experiment on a large scale.

ESC may very well be effective, but to what degree is pure conjecture. Like we've seen with other proposed safety devices, after adoption the effectiveness amazingly decreases, sometimes dramatically. In the meantime people are paying increased vehicle prices to experiment on a large scale.

Well historicially your argument just dosen't work! Here is some information from, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Federal Role in Highway Safety. I am very happy that safety sells and the high end items get used on lower priced cars. Do you really think the next DCX van won't have VSC on it?? BTW according to NHSTA data 1999-2002 the DCX had over 25% of it fatalities due to rollover!

Here is some historic data from that report!

The fatality rate per hundred million vehicle miles traveled had gone down steadily from 11.4 in 1940 to 5.2 in 1962, then began rising again in 1963 and registered 5.7 in 1964.

As of 2004 now at 1.46, do you think thats by accident?? Wearing your seatbelt alone more than doubles your chances of surviving a auto accident(that certainly was a experiment that paid off). ABS will consistantly stop a car on wet and dry surfaces faster than non ABS. But it can have longer stopping times on gravel and snow. The bad thing about ABS is the end user needs to know how to use it. In studies nearly 50% of people still think you should pump the brakes. Also how many people out there have gone to a parking lot and tryed to brake hard and steer at the same time. ABS is a practiced skill, except noone pratices it! VSC does it's job with no input from the driver. While to some this may sound scary. To me it helps because most people don't have any experience with loss of control situations! ESC may prove to be less effective than touted but I am happy to be involved in this experiment. While the DCX guys are just the control group!

"movement from mechanical to electrical systems and sensors means that physical evidence of the crash is diminishing"

Couldn't possibly agree more with Dr. Martinez and dustyk. Exactly(somewhat ) what the Jipster has stated on several other threads/boards...though admittedly not as well researched and articulated as that provided by dustyk.I'll take ESC...but I'd still like to see a LOT more studies AND proof before jumping on the "ESC is the greatest thing since sliced bread" bandwagon.

Please post the source of your information on fatalities. A search of NHSTA site only released info for ALL 2004 minivans (not by brand) and showed out of 2,561 crashes of ALL minivans showed a fatality rate of 4.4% for ALL minivans.

Please post the source of your information on fatalities. A search of NHSTA site only released info for ALL 2004 minivans (not by brand) and showed out of 2,561 crashes of ALL minivans showed a fatality rate of 4.4% for ALL minivans.

What information are you talking about and where did this come from?? :confuse:

How about lower cost for the DCX? Some people proclaim ESC was a major factor in paying a premium for their minivan. I don't care if someone uses the extra convenience of Stow N go or not, but the DCX vans are cheaper (by how much is quite another topic).

I'm sure upfront pricing is the most important factor for many buyers. For others it might be ease of carrying cargo, while some put the premium on safety. Some buy one model over another for a particular shade of a certain color paint. It's all good.

ESC might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but so far the evidence that past vehicle safety features are responsible for lives saved is more blind faith than empirical. The contention that fatalities have been reduced because of mandatory or optional safety equipment is statistically insupportable. The US traffic death rate had and has been in decline well before mandatory safety equipment was required on motor vehicles.

Why do you think the installation of Event Data Recorders has been received with either luke-warm or negative response? You'd think having pre-crash data available for analysis would be glowingly embraced.

ESC might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but so far the evidence that past vehicle safety features are responsible for lives saved is more blind faith than empirical. The contention that fatalities have been reduced because of mandatory or optional safety equipment is statistically insupportable. The US traffic death rate had and has been in decline well before mandatory safety equipment was required on motor vehicles. Why do you think the installation of Event Data Recorders has been received with either luke-warm or negative response? You'd think having pre-crash data available for analysis would be glowingly embraced.

Yep you can have a study that shows lots of stuff. I would think that you don't like any data that isn't part of your conventionial wisdom. From the mid 50's to the mid 60's death rates per MMT were very steady. The real start of making vehicles more safe by engineering controls started then. Before that their was very little interest in safety equipment or safer vehicle design. I guess we should have our guys at NASCAR throw out thier helmets, safety restriants, and get rid of that dang safety cage and those silly flame resistant suits. Because it just dosen't seem to work. :blush: Duskyk I'll take blind faith over no faith in anything every time. The data is pretty compelling but hey you can try and go forward or you can just do nothing. As a rumor(which I think is probably untrue) says they wanted to close the patent office because everything that needs to be has already been invented! Technology and invention is truely wahat makes the United States great!!

ALL 2004 minivans (not by brand) and showed out of 2,561 crashes of ALL minivans showed a fatality rate of 4.4% for ALL minivans.

No it dosen't it shows that 4.4% of fatalities happen in minivans as compared to other body types. Also the 2,561 crashes are not total crashes but fatality crashes. The total number of car crashes was over 10 million. One can estimate that minivan crashes were probably about 400K-500K. It is only speculation since it is in the light truck group!!

I think this is what you want!! Look at the leader of the group 1999-2002 honda Odyssey, the bottom of the pack Dodge Caravan!!

We found some ramps on the Internet and ordered them. My next picture will show how to get a wheel chair in my van. You can't get anymore family friendly than that. This van is going to do things I never dreamed of doing when I bought it and I had some pretty good ideas of how I was going to use it then.

I didn't get the bassinet over to my daughter's house none to soon. She had a baby girl yesterday.

I had assumed the Carvan SWB was redesigned with the rest of the lineup in '05 ('04?). If it is still the same, it makes me wonder just how much of a 'redesign' the DGC received. I know it received the new sto'n'go and some revised exterior sheetmetal/interior appointments. But now I wonder if it received anything which would have helped it's fatality rate?

"ESC might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but so far the evidence that past vehicle safety features are responsible for lives saved is more blind faith than empirical. The contention that fatalities have been reduced because of mandatory or optional safety equipment is statistically insupportable."

Every time I've seen a paper on the topic at a conference, the data has always been pretty compelling that seatbelt use has a very strong correlation to motor vehicle crash fatalities. Yeah, they could all be wrong I suppose. Plus, there are always going to be those who don't believe it and refuse to wear seatbelts. Some people don't believe the Earth is round, either, but least they don't fall off if they go too far. Well, I guess I can't prove they don't, so who knows?

Things like airbags and other safety features have much weaker correlations. That doesn't mean they aren't saving many lives, but it does give detractors a lot more room to spread propaganda. On the plus side, as far as I know, few if any states have laws preventing people from disabling airbags or stability control systems. So, even skeptics who don't want to drive something from the 1980s still have some choices. I guess we could always leave it to natural selection. This is a fine example:

Yup. Who needs things like seatbelts, stability control or rollover side curtain airbags.

"The US traffic death rate had and has been in decline well before mandatory safety equipment was required on motor vehicles."

If true, this assumes there were no other factors involved and that there was no widespread voluntary safety equipment of the same type. It is possible to isolate other variables. I'm sure one could google for such information, but again, no one can force anyone to believe it anyway.

"Why do you think the installation of Event Data Recorders has been received with either luke-warm or negative response? You'd think having pre-crash data available for analysis would be glowingly embraced."

For the same reason people hate recorders of any type- fear of Big Brother. I remember the uproar some groups had about "Vchip" in television sets being some method of governmental monitoring- I can't imagine what they spread about vehicle data recorders.